The artificial womb

[Nearly Sane]

Amazing development and one that is going to be something that causes a new set of ethical dilemmas.


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/lambs-artificial-womb-biobag-premature-birth?utm_source=dmfb

[floo]

Incredible.

[ekim]

I wonder what effect it will have on the emotional development of the baby?

[floo]

I wonder what effect it will have on the emotional development of the baby?

That's a thought.

[SweetPea]

I wonder what effect it will have on the emotional development of the baby?

Exactly, Ekim. It's man playing God. AI is along the same lines. All about 'reconstructing the human' and losing the beauty and wonder of who we really are.

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly, Ekim. It's man playing God. AI is along the same lines. All about 'reconstructing the human' and losing the beauty and wonder of who we really are.

so you don't want to save premature babies that might otherwise die?

[Rhiannon]

Right. So science giving very prem babies the best opportunity to survive is a bad thing?

[DaveM]

I think the choice of the term 'artificial womb' is a bit misleading.  Surely this simply represents a quantum leap forward in incubator technology which allows medical science to move the point at which there is a good chance of saving the lives of premature infants from the present position to an even earlier date.  So not sure why there should be an ethical problem with this particular development.  Is it ethically acceptable to save the life of a 23 week old infant and yet ethically controversial to do the same for a 20 week infant.  Not in my book.

Even if the stage was reached where fertilized human eggs could be similarly treated, this would not really be a significant ethical problem compared to such issues as human cloning or experimenting with embryos for a few weeks and then destroying them.  Or again, the recently approved procedure of 'three parent' infants.  Not to mention at what stage abortion by choice should be considered acceptable.

     

[Rhiannon]

I really don't see healthy women who want children choosing not to go through pregnancy. Even if this technology can advance to the stage where it can be used from conception I don't see the appeal except for those women who have no wombs, and even then they may still prefer human surrogacy.

[SweetPea]

This is what I find worrying:

"Although keeping fetuses alive at the equivalent of 23 weeks is an impressive technical achievement, what about dialling back the clock even further? Why need a womb at all? Simply artificially-inseminate an egg, pop it in a biobag and nine months later, voila.

"At present there is no technology, even on the horizon," said Flake, "to support the embryo to the test-tube stage [when it can be grown in an artificial womb]."

We're limited to our reproductive physiology—in some form or another—for awhile yet to come."

[Nearly Sane]

I think the choice of the term 'artificial womb' is a bit misleading.  Surely this simply represents a quantum leap forward in incubator technology which allows medical science to move the point at which there is a good chance of saving the lives of premature infants from the present position to an even earlier date.  So not sure why there should be an ethical problem with this particular development.  Is it ethically acceptable to save the life of a 23 week old infant and yet ethically controversial to do the same for a 20 week infant.  Not in my book.

Even if the stage was reached where fertilized human eggs could be similarly treated, this would not really be a significant ethical problem compared to such issues as human cloning or experimenting with embryos for a few weeks and then destroying them.  Or again, the recently approved procedure of 'three parent' infants.  Not to mention at what stage abortion by choice should be considered acceptable.

   

. But one of the drivers for the stage at which abortion is seen as acceptable is survival outside the womb. If this is developed so that it supports premature foetuses at an earlier stage it will have an impact on that. It also then has an impact as the capability extends on how you treat embryos if they are viable with the use of the womb.

[Nearly Sane]

I really don't see healthy women who want children choosing not to go through pregnancy. Even if this technology can advance to the stage where it can be used from conception I don't see the appeal except for those women who have no wombs, and even then they may still prefer human surrogacy.

Not sure about this. If the artificial wombs were shown to be safer it might be seen as a better option. Difficult to say.

[Rhiannon]

Not sure about this. If the artificial wombs were shown to be safer it might be seen as a better option. Difficult to say.

There's a very strong driver to get pregnant; it's a physical craving that throws rationality out of the window (been there, done that). Women have vbacs even though they aren't statistically safer. And over time we may discover that physical safety is outweighed by the emotional damage of never having any time gestating in the womb.

But we don't even know if this will ever happen. And in the meantime it's possible that the technology will save lives and deliver better lifelong outcomes for prem babies.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the choice of the term 'artificial womb' is a bit misleading.  Surely this simply represents a quantum leap forward in incubator technology

I agree.

Even if the stage was reached where fertilized human eggs could be similarly treated, this would not really be a significant ethical problem compared to such issues as human cloning or experimenting with embryos for a few weeks and then destroying them.  Or again, the recently approved procedure of 'three parent' infants.  Not to mention at what stage abortion by choice should be considered acceptable.

I disagree - the notion of taking a fertilised egg through full development is massively ethically controversial - and indeed would be also illegal under current law in the UK, which does not allow an early embryo to develop beyond the 14th day of development.

I would argue that doing this is much more controversial ethically than allowing a fertilised egg to develop for just a few days before it is destroyed. Specifically because that very early embryo has none of the attributes that defined personhood. By contract, were you to be able to take that embryo artificially through the stages where neurological development has started you would, in effect, have created a person - and with it come huge ethical responsibility, that does not apply to (for example) a 5 day 100 cell blastocyst.

[SusanDoris]

Exactly, Ekim. It's man playing God. AI is along the same lines. All about 'reconstructing the human' and losing the beauty and wonder of who we really are.

So if you were a mother whose baby was going to die anyway, and there was a chance for that baby to develop  to a stage where he/she could survive, you would prefer that foetus to die, because that was God's will?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Almost and teetering on the totally Sensible,

Thank you, a brilliant link, one that took me on a little voyage of discovery, Incubators are a big part of my daily work routine, I see those tiny little infants inside those machines every working day and stand in awe of the Doctors and Nurse who tend these little miracles.

It is a fascinating subject but who would have thunk that its birthplace was a carnival sideshow,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36321692

I am now wondering if the makers of these Incubators will now have to rethink their whole technology, we had a short demo on the latest Incubator ( Babyleo, think of the film Alien when they come out of deep space sleep ) which they hope will replace the Giraffe ( yes Giraffe ) absolutely no mention of amniotic fluid.

Gonnagle.

[SweetPea]

So if you were a mother whose baby was going to die anyway, and there was a chance for that baby to develop  to a stage where he/she could survive, you would prefer that foetus to die, because that was God's will?

No, I wouldn't and this new incubator is very good. But it's how they (the scientists) can't stop there.... see my comment, reply number 9.

[Jack Knave]

I wonder what effect it will have on the emotional development of the baby?

One thing I noticed with the lambs was that they were in the glare of lights and not darkness. Whether that affects them or a human embryo - when and if they ever do it - in anyway could be an issue.

[Jack Knave]

Exactly, Ekim. It's man playing God. AI is along the same lines. All about 'reconstructing the human' and losing the beauty and wonder of who we really are.

A good way to produce an underclass of serfs.

[SweetPea]

A good way to produce an underclass of serfs.

Y'know, there could be more truth in that than you think. After all, this is evermore an Orwellian society we are living-in. Very sadly.

[Jack Knave]

Y'know, there could be more truth in that than you think. After all, this is evermore an Orwellian society we are living-in. Very sadly.

I was being mainly serious in my comment. But the thing is the robots will be the neo-serfs and the unnecessary people of the masses will be just left to rot away.

[SweetPea]

I was being mainly serious in my comment. But the thing is the robots will be the neo-serfs and the unnecessary people of the masses will be just left to rot away.

Who knows how things will be 20 years from now. I try not to think about it and worry about my grandchildren growing-up in a world evermore dominated by technology. Even 10 years ago there was talk of not teaching children how to write because.... 'with the dawn of the use mostly of computers' handwriting would no longer be required. Oh, really?? Well, my wee grandson is writing his own name now, and his sister's name. But I digress.... back to the techy wombs..

[Jack Knave]

Who knows how things will be 20 years from now. I try not to think about it and worry about my grandchildren growing-up in a world evermore dominated by technology. Even 10 years ago there was talk of not teaching children how to write because.... 'with the dawn of the use mostly of computers' handwriting would no longer be required. Oh, really?? Well, my wee grandson is writing his own name now, and his sister's name. But I digress.... back to the techy wombs..

There's hope yet. I hear more books got sold last year than in previous other recent years. Seems that the people preferring the physical world to the digital one in some cases.

[SweetPea]

There's hope yet. I hear more books got sold last year than in previous other recent years. Seems that the people preferring the physical world to the digital one in some cases.

Yes, I saw that too, Jack, and quite frankly was very pleased to hear so, even though I was slightly surprised albeit many, including myself, prefer a good old-fashioned book to a Kindle. The matter being, though, we are human and technology can push and push but the 'human spirit' within us will also push. So, here's hoping the human us will ultimately win over the cyborg us.
   

[jeremyp]

Who knows how things will be 20 years from now. I try not to think about it and worry about my grandchildren growing-up in a world evermore dominated by technology.

The world you live in now is dominated by technology. Back in the fifteenth century people probably bemoaned the technology of printed books because it meant the end of the old ways. You can either fear technological change or you can embrace it. I recommend the latter.

Even 10 years ago there was talk of not teaching children how to write because.... 'with the dawn of the use mostly of computers' handwriting would no longer be required. Oh, really?? Well, my wee grandson is writing his own name now, and his sister's name. But I digress.... back to the techy wombs..

So what you are saying is that the talk ten years ago was just sensationalist nonsense.